Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Ewan McNay]

From: JonCleaves@...
Subject: Re: Army cycles (and NICT)
In a message dated 7/17/2003 8:19:59 AM Eastern Standard Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:
<<It's been my experience that army choices tend to run in cycles -
knights are king, so everyone brings elephants, so everyone brings
Romans/bows, so everyone brings knights..>>

>....[reference Kingdom of V army..] Seriously, this looks to be maybe the best
of the several 'elephants-plus-reg loose foot' lists going - thoughts from
others?>>

I agree with your assessment of cycles, Ewan. But I'd add it is more
subtly a cycle of 'support troops' than a cycle of armies.
Given that we have not all broken the code on how to fight an all or
mostly mounted force, I'd (Lord forgive me) break the 'categories' of
armies at the NICT into: knights, elephants, barbarian foot, and missile
foot.
**Did you mean fight _with_ or _against_ an all-mounted force, Jon? I
would expect to see maybe one or two cav armies - which I agree are
difficult to win big with, especially on the relatively smaller tables
in 25mm, but can also be difficult to catch and kill with some armies.
In 15mm, Mongol can run in circles all day against many opponents; the
Belgians used to bring a whole team of Mongols to the Worlds, under 7th,
and very annoying it was too if you weren't using missile foot!**

The question of which to be, besides being driven much more by a
player's 'style' than other issues discussed here to my mind, is also
driven by the type of support troops that go with the main category just
listed. What do you want to have with your elephants? Well, what kills
elephants? JLS armed foot of good morale, for example. What kills
*them*? *That's* the higher order question that also decides which list
to choose. Kingdom of V armies come with excellent support troops to
cover elephant 'vulnerabilities', so I think Ewan has correctly
idenitified them as a major contender.

**Agreed. And there are of course further levels - for instance, if I
have elephants, I'm probably not too worried about knight armies, so I
can (more) happily take foot which are vulnerable to knights as support
troops. But... am I trying to (as someone, maybe Jon again or Scott
mentioned earlier) minimise my vulnerability or maximise my strength?
For a tournament, I think this is important. Sure, I could take
artillery, pike, and fortifications, and try to sit in a corner (as an
extreme) - unlikely to lose, unlikely to win. but to win a tourney, you
have to get wins - and so it is a choice as to whether make those army
match=ups which are in your favour, overwhelmingly so, leading to big
wins (you hope) if you get the right matchups but possible big losses
otherwise, or to try to cover your vulnerabilities and hence reduce the
likely magnitude of both wins and losses. I suspect that the answer to
this depends on whether you consider 2nd to be equivalent to last (i.e.,
both lost) or as very different (positional placing is important).**

I'd add, though, that Kingdom of V (or any other army) in the hands of
someone who is uncomfortable with it (or is a beginner) is far, far less
of a concern than any army in the hands of someone who is a good
tactictian (as opposed to a 'rules marginalist') and/or who is extremely
comfortable with it. If I know my army inside and out and know how it
matches up in most/all situations, I am thinking about tactics while my
opponent is counting factors on the combat chart and trying to figure
out how many march segments camels get. I am inside his decisions at
that point and that is a greater advantage than any given by troop
matchup. In my opinion anyway.

**What's a 'rules marginalist'?

**I agree with most of this, too, although I think that the 'factors and
camel marches' overstates - the rules stuff one can (and many have) in
memory, it's the tactical nuances that come with practice and repeated
playing. Jon and I have - as readers will have noted - different
opinions on the relative import of army list selection and choice vs.
table-top tactics, but the basic message I agree with.

**And now the heavens can fall....**

[joncleaves]

> **Did you mean fight _with_ or _against_ an all-mounted force, Jon? >>

I meant win with in the NICT (or other top-end open tournament).

<< I would expect to see maybe one or two cav armies - which I agree are
difficult to win big with, especially on the relatively smaller tables in 25mm,
but can also be difficult to catch and kill with some armies. >>

Yes, it's the 'win big with' part. In the NICT you have to win every game big.
In other formats, such armies 'do better'.

> **Agreed. And there are of course further levels - for instance, if I have
elephants, I'm probably not too worried about knight armies, so I can (more)
happily take foot which are vulnerable to knights as support troops.>>

Except that by doing so, you give the knight player something to focus on. He
will aim at screening the El and then hitting the vulnerable foot. Thus leading
to what the El guy is going to do for counter-counter-tactics....etc.

<< But... am I trying to (as someone, maybe Jon again or Scott
> mentioned earlier) minimise my vulnerability or maximise my strength? >>

Yes. :)

<< For a tournament, I think this is important. Sure, I could take artillery,
pike, and fortifications, and try to sit in a corner (as an extreme) - unlikely
to lose, unlikely to win. but to win a tourney, you have to get wins >>

You have to. A guy with fortifications in such a tourney is a spoiler...
Nothing I hate more...lol

> **What's a 'rules marginalist'?>>

A guy who, in an intricate game like Warrior, uses the edges of the rules for
advantage rather than executing a tactical plan where the rules are facilitator,
not traps for the opponent.

>
> **And now the heavens can fall....**>>

What, you don't *like* agreeing with me? lol

J